Post-COVID Urbanism Discussion

Boston, with its labs and hospitals, has a strong portfolio of “must be at the nexus”

Whereas NYC and Silicon Valley were about pure “you gotta be here because I had to be here” —that is just not as plausible as it once was
 
Arlington said:
Boston, with its labs and hospitals, has a strong portfolio of “must be at the nexus”

Whereas NYC and Silicon Valley were about pure “you gotta be here because I had to be here” —that is just not as plausible as it once was
Click to expand...

These are interesting insights and hypotheses. I agree that Boston will benefit from having an outsized proportion of "must be at the nexus" activity compared to other cities (though I would add certain components of Higher Ed & Research to the must-be-at-nexus-list for Boston).

At first glance, most of this is intuitive to me. But I feel like there are categories beyond must-be-at-nexsus and you-gotta-be-here-because-I-had-to-be-here (though I agree with those two and the projected trends). With regard to the latter, I agree that the value of certain "rites of passage" and "prestigiousness of doing things in a particular way because that's how impressive things were done before" will decline as people can prove those things can be done other ways very effectively.

The missing category, in my mind, is what I'll call "very complex, very collaborative" work that, technically and logically can be done without co-location, but, over time, suffers in a sense-able way. I've worked on complex systems as an engineer where experts across disciplines needed to work together on never-done-before things: here, trust and relationships and openness really mattered. If we got too distanced, we started losing trust that everyone was coming from a good place with team-oriented motives. This is very different from doing work that is commoditized or already well-established and modularized (for instance: I have no desire to see my accountant...in that case, please just get it done and let me know when it's done). Whereas, when working on really challenging innovative stuff, it can in fact be so personal. I can recall many times when "let's go grab coffee" has stemmed from feelings of "why the hell is he really making us use that power supply?"

It's hard to put to words, but my gut tells me that really complex/innovative/collaborative work will continue to draw people together.
 
Last edited:
MIT’s fusion reactor projects are a great example of “must be On the team and in the room” Obviously it is the kind of cross disciplinary cutting edge innovation it happens in small teams in person.

My concern is that media fame around device innnovation tends overstate the employment impacts on a metro area. I am sure Volpe smart transportation work is also kick ass and Has to be done in person. All will be the stuff of song and legend the question is whether it will also be the stuff of an urban economy.
 
Arlington said:
MIT’s fusion reactor projects are a great example of “must be On the team and in the room” Obviously it is the kind of cross disciplinary cutting edge innovation it happens in small teams in person.

My concern is that media fame around device innnovation tends overstate the employment impacts on a metro area. I am sure Volpe smart transportation work is also kick ass and Has to be done in person. All will be the stuff of song and legend the question is whether it will also be the stuff of an urban economy.
Click to expand...

I think you are onto something here. The work that has "media fame" and the actual work needing to get done are two different things. Certain types of work and workers have an outsized media fame relative to their enduring importance, actual headcount and actual future demand. For instance, when Twitter says its workers can work from home, how much does that really matter? Twitter doesn't even have that big of a workforce. Don't get me wrong, I believe some jobs can be done from pretty much anywhere (I'm not arguing against that specifically). However, I do believe we are wasting a lot of technical horsepower (and associated media blathering) right now on market bubble-esque cloud software app and other commoditized or near-commoditized SW work (much of which will end up overseas anyways). Eventually the bill will come due in U.S. society for more high-impact, cutting edge technical work in the areas of energy, transportation, biomedicine, and others. That "very complex, very collaborative" work requires more of an in-person presence. So I think it's a matter of which cities are best positioned to take that on.
 
Last edited:
When I was younger, you either had someone or you didn't. No one wanted to be alone. It was a trope until recently, dying alone. Are internet social networks enough to replace physical relationships, or the need for one? I remember staying up to midnight as young teenages to watch the PBS Nana where it was said there would be a nude scene. There was, 5 seconds of a naked breast (as if I could see it on the low resolution TVs of that day). For most of history, the older you became the more you saw. Today, people see everything the moment they look at a computer screen, no matter what the age. This is a problem I have with my kids. I see a timeline; they don't. It's all immediate. Architecturally, all steel, glass, plastic and bare. Perhaps that is the same for every generation.

Can cities thrive in the future, disconnected from history, from tradition? I can see it if social networks and drugs are enough for humans. I come back to this poem by Yates, over and over again. Written at a similar time in history when technology had obliterated the old lifestyle. If the poem remains true, we will see violence, war and famine as bad as any in history. Whether cities or thrive or not will be hardly worth thinking about.

Second Coming

Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.

Surely some revelation is at hand;
Surely the Second Coming is at hand.
The Second Coming! Hardly are those words out
When a vast image out of Spiritus Mundi
Troubles my sight: somewhere in sands of the desert
A shape with lion body and the head of a man,
A gaze blank and pitiless as the sun,
Is moving its slow thighs, while all about it
Reel shadows of the indignant desert birds.
The darkness drops again; but now I know
That twenty centuries of stony sleep
Were vexed to nightmare by a rocking cradle,
And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?
 
With most of the restrictions in the state being lifted on May 29th we'll find out pretty quickly how eager employers are to bring employees back into the office.
 
Easy: move to the suburbs if you don't want people eating close to where you live.

“I’ve seen a lot of changes in the North End, and not for the better,” said long-time resident Gina Lupo. “I can’t even go on the weekends and walk around my neighborhood. It’s just too many people on the sidewalks, and I can’t even cross the street because I’m gonna get run over by the people driving in the street too fast.”
Click to expand...

Seems like a simple solution if you're complaining about cramped sidewalks and unsafe cars: on the list of places that shouldn't have cars, the North End is up there - extend outdoor dining into the street and only permit emergency vehicles and deliveries.
 
maxdatabook said:
When I was younger, you either had someone or you didn't. No one wanted to be alone. It was a trope until recently, dying alone. Are internet social networks enough to replace physical relationships, or the need for one? I remember staying up to midnight as young teenages to watch the PBS Nana where it was said there would be a nude scene. There was, 5 seconds of a naked breast (as if I could see it on the low resolution TVs of that day). For most of history, the older you became the more you saw. Today, people see everything the moment they look at a computer screen, no matter what the age. This is a problem I have with my kids. I see a timeline; they don't. It's all immediate. Architecturally, all steel, glass, plastic and bare. Perhaps that is the same for every generation.
Click to expand...
I'm going to argue that this is the wrong perspective. WFH allows people to actually spend more time with their love ones because you get back the time you would have spent on commute which for some can be around 1 hr each way (and thus a total of 10 hours wasted each week). Furthermore, given how companies generally discourage having intimate relationships with co-workers, chances are, you and your spouse do not work at the same company or in the same place. The ability to WFH thus allows you to work in the same location as your spouse. If anything, remote working has increased the face time you get with your spouses.
 
KentXie said:
I'm going to argue that this is the wrong perspective. WFH allows people to actually spend more time with their love ones because you get back the time you would have spent on commute which for some can be around 1 hr each way (and thus a total of 10 hours wasted each week). Furthermore, given how companies generally discourage having intimate relationships with co-workers, chances are, you and your spouse do not work at the same company or in the same place. The ability to WFH thus allows you to work in the same location as your spouse. If anything, remote working has increased the face time you get with your spouses.
Click to expand...

And I am going to argue that this perspective misses a bigger point. Why are we creating a society where marriage/kids necessarily corresponds with living far from work (i.e., suburban family/parenting values), where good schools can only exist in suburbs, and desirable family homes can only exist in suburbs. Density and urbanity is all about co-locating all of those things. Collaborate with colleagues at the office one day, work from your dining room table the next, get up and walk into the office if a tricky discussion needs to happen with colleagues...swing by school to pick up the kid on the way home. I know people will point to a million reasons why this isn't happening equitably for everyone yet, but that doesn't mean it isn't a desirable aspiration.
 
bigpicture7 said:
And I am going to argue that this perspective misses a bigger point. Why are we creating a society where marriage/kids necessarily corresponds with living far from work (i.e., suburban family/parenting values), where good schools can only exist in suburbs, and desirable family homes can only exist in suburbs. Density and urbanity is all about co-locating all of those things. Collaborate with colleagues at the office one day, work from your dining room table the next, get up and walk into the office if a tricky discussion needs to happen with colleagues...swing by school to pick up the kid on the way home. I know people will point to a million reasons why this isn't happening equitably for everyone yet, but that doesn't mean it isn't a desirable aspiration.
Click to expand...
It's a desirable aspiration. My point is that WFH allows more interactions with your love ones due to the additional flexibility is all
 
KentXie said:
It's a desirable aspiration. My point is that WFH allows more interactions with your love ones due to the additional flexibility is all
Click to expand...
I've essentially worked from home much of my life, married with 3 girls (now grown). You're right, I didn't take any jobs where many hours were consumed with commuting and all the wasted office time that goes with it. That said, I don't believe most people prefer that lifestyle.
 
I'm in a prediction-making mood this monday morning, and since this is a thread outside of the development area that barely anyone reads, I'm going to plunk down a couple of hypotheses. Take em' or leave em'

Hypothesis 1: Covid will inevitably lead to a strengthening of urbanism (relative to the suburbs), rather than the opposite.
Hypothesis 1a: If offices are going to be more like "hubs," even if many employees aren't going to go there every day, it makes zero sense to locate them in a non-hub-like location (i.e., the suburbs). Suburbs are poorly located and poorly connected; even if people go in to the office rarely, it still makes no sense to locate offices there. Not only will companies who were already based in cities choose to stay there (though they may decrease square footage), many more companies will choose to actually relocate their downsized offices into cities. Suburban-based offices will no longer make much sense, since no individual suburb/environs can house many people and people have a decreased tolerance for inconvenient commutes (even if only ~2 days/wk); therefore, offices will instead to converge into centralized locations.​
Hypothesis 1b: City residential life will thrive, even more so than pre-Covid. More people can live where they want now, and a lot of those people will choose cities. A subset of young people worked in suburban office park campuses, but most of them didn't really want to be there - young people tend to crave cities. So now that there's more flexibility, those young individuals will converge where most of their friends are: cities. If one only needs to commute a couple days a week, more of such young people will choose a reverse commute so they can spend more time in the city. Further, many retiring baby boomers who don't want the big house and yard will also move into cities where maintenance-free living and services/amenities are plentiful.​
Hypothesis 2: the main outflow from cities will be people in their early 30s once they start families. Unfortunately and sadly, these folks don't trust city school systems. Also, these early 30-somethings crave being able to show their families/extended families that they've "made it," which involves having a big house and yard to show off and a big enough dining room table to be able to host holidays (gotta pick up the torch from mom and dad, so everyone feels validated). These strong social forces will still draw many 30-somethings out of cities (where they will then complain that their companies don't do enough to support them), but it will not be a net-negative outflow overall, as the 20-somethings and boomers will produce a larger positive inflow. Also, as today's 20-somethings age with an urban orientation and with parents who are now urban, fewer 30-somethings will flee the city in 10+ years from now.

My prediction is that good news lies ahead for cities.
 
Last edited:
An interesting real estate transactions analysis from the Minneapolis/St. Paul area:

Though people departed cities near the beginning of the pandemic, they were replaced by others seeking to move into cities:
www.startribune.com

Twin Cities housing market shows churn but no signs of an urban exodus

Minneapolis and St. Paul took the biggest share of the overall home market they've had in six years.
www.startribune.com www.startribune.com

(opinion alert) I felt (& still feel) that the initial urban outflow corresponded with 30-somethings who were already on the verge of moving to suburbs (to start families) to take the plunge to do so, rather than convincing previous city-committed folks to turn against cities. These were folks who would have moved anyway, but the pandemic just concentrated the moves into a narrower time band. It is still sad that people think they have to leave cities to raise families. But that's nothing new. Many others still want to be in cities, and the pandemic doesn't seem to have changed that (at least not in this limited analysis).
 
What is going to happen to CBD towers like Winthrop, South Station Air Rights? Are they going to fill? Will they fill at the expense of other downtown towers?

What will happen to State street’s current HQ when the new one opens?

it seems to me that a lot of space that has stayed *contractually* occupied (as both landlords and tenants were uncertain about future space needs) is about to discover all at once that the Great Return is not going to happen
 
Boston seems lucky that hospitals, bio labs, and schools have a strong sense of place. But a lot of white collar institutional/professional services? Not so much.

But bio lab space is limited to about 7 stories—great if you’re Paris or DC and have the ability to go 7 to 10 stories tall at *every* transit station

Not so good if you have 20 ~ 40 stories on a few CR hubs
 
Arlington said:
What is going to happen to CBD towers like Winthrop, South Station Air Rights? Are they going to fill? Will they fill at the expense of other downtown towers?

What will happen to State street’s current HQ when the new one opens?

it seems to me that a lot of space that has stayed *contractually* occupied (as both landlords and tenants were uncertain about future space needs) is about to discover all at once that the Great Return is not going to happen
Click to expand...

If you didn't catch it previously, there was some interesting debate on this in the Bromfield thread. That developer, who as of January is still saying they're going with a new office tower on that site, has a theory that office demand is going to consolidate into the best/newest Class A space, and it is the older/Class B and un-modernized space that is going to struggle to lease. Here's the Globe article:
www.bostonglobe.com

Building an office tower in downtown Boston right now? Maybe not as crazy as it sounds. - The Boston Globe

A New York-based developer is pushing ahead with a $350 million, 22-story office tower in Downtown Crossing, albeit one that will differ from typical high-rises in a few key ways.
www.bostonglobe.com www.bostonglobe.com

So, if this developer is right, the more interesting question is what is going to happen to all of the CBD's older (and in some cases historic) office space?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top